THERE Is no super being i will tell you why

[Beaudreaux]

If one believes in an ALL benevolent god... I personally do not believe in such a simplistic deity.
Thus Beaudreaux's arguments seem to fall flat to me.

wa:do

Well, given the paucity of instances of God doing ANYthing good, and the overwhelming number of instances in which He has refused to do good, where would you say He falls on the Good/Evil continuum?

 

[Perfect Circle]

If one believes in an ALL benevolent god... I personally do not believe in such a simplistic deity.
Thus Beaudreaux's arguments seem to fall flat to me.

wa:do

And there in lies the disconnect... Although, in my view, an even mildly benevolent god would do more than whatever may or may not be up there right now.

 

[painted wolf]

I fail to see the disconnect... but that may just be me.
I don't see Creator fixing things for us to be good for us as a species, let alone as one of millions of species.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Well, given the paucity of instances of God doing ANYthing good, and the overwhelming number of instances in which He has refused to do good, where would you say He falls on the Good/Evil continuum?

I tend to put Creator in the middle... neither good nor evil.
I also don't think of Creator as an interventionist... cold as that may seem, I just don't see why Creator would bother to fiddle with things.

wa:do

 

[Perfect Circle]

I fail to see the disconnect... but that may just be me.
I don't see Creator fixing things for us to be good for us as a species, let alone as one of millions of species.

wa:do

I think we're talking past each other wolf. Maybe it's just differing view points on exactly what benevolent means...

 

[painted wolf]

I think we're talking past each other wolf. Maybe it's just differing view points on exactly what benevolent means...

Very likely...

Creator not being actively out to make my life miserable.. IMHO is benevolent.

wa:do

 

[Perfect Circle]

Very likely...

Creator not being actively out to make my life miserable.. IMHO is benevolent.

wa:do

I guess it's just a glass-half-full thing...

 

[MoonWater]

I fail to see the disconnect... but that may just be me.
I don't see Creator fixing things for us to be good for us as a species, let alone as one of millions of species.

wa:do

I agree with you there wolf and that is the whole point I've been trying to make. We gain nothing from having a god cater to our every whim and codle and protect us from every ill. In order to grow and evolve we need to experience pain, discomfort, suffering; otherwise we as a species and as individuals would never grow and evolve. If it weren't for conflict and struggling to survive there would be no such thing as evolution, there would be no point, and as such we would not be humans capable of all the things we are currently capable of nor would we have anything to look forward to as a species. Lack of conflict equals only stagnation and death.

 

[Perfect Circle]

I agree with you there wolf and that is the whole point I've been trying to make. We gain nothing from having a god cater to our every whim and codle and protect us from every ill. In order to grow and evolve we need to experience pain, discomfort, suffering; otherwise we as a species and as individuals would never grow and evolve. If it weren't for conflict and struggling to survive there would be no such thing as evolution, there would be no point, and as such we would not be humans capable of all the things we are currently capable of nor would we have anything to look forward to as a species. Lack of conflict equals only stagnation and death.

I agree with what you're saying to a point, but you're using the "codle and protect us" argument here again. That's not what Beadreaux and the others are saying. They are giving examples that absolutely negate any form of lesson learning or strength building.

How is allowing a completely innocent, helpless, child fall into the hands of someone who would do unspeakable things to them benevolent in any way, shape, or form? Yet this happens quite often. And it happens in such a way that the perpetrator gets off scott free, and the child dies a horrible death. If this god has good intentions, I fail to see them. Nor do view that as "codling them".

 

[MoonWater]

I agree with what you're saying to a point, but you're using the "codle and protect us" argument here again. That's not what Beadreaux and the others are saying. They are giving examples that absolutely negate any form of lesson learning or strength building.

How is allowing a completely innocent, helpless, child fall into the hands of someone who would do unspeakable things to them benevolent in any way, shape, or form? Yet this happens quite often. And it happens in such a way that the perpetrator gets off scott free, and the child dies a horrible death. If this god has good intentions, I fail to see them. Nor do view that as "codling them".

Are you so sure that it's negated? After all we have no idea what that child becomes after dying. Or perhaps in dying now the child was saved from a fate even worse. Or maybe god just wasn't capable of interfering in that regard. I imagine any god would have certain rules to adhere to, maybe he is incapable of interfering with us directly. There are so many factors and nuances that we are unaware of and any god must be infinitely more aware of all these factors and nuances than we are. As such how can we possibly judge him based on our own limited understanding.

For instance, we see someone shoot and kill a dog, we think they are horrible. We know nothing of the situation beyond that and we think they are horrid for doing such a thing. Yet what if that same dog had rabies or was suffering terribly from cancer or what have you? That same act that we consider horrid would seem merciful and loving to those who were aware of the dogs condition. Nothing about the situation itself has changed, the only difference is in the information available to others. Different information leads to different conclusions and opinions. And isn't it usually agreed upon that those who have the most information about a situation are the ones best suited for making the decision and better able to make the decision that's in the best interest of all involved?

 

[painted wolf]

How is allowing a completely innocent, helpless, child fall into the hands of someone who would do unspeakable things to them benevolent in any way, shape, or form? Yet this happens quite often. And it happens in such a way that the perpetrator gets off scott free, and the child dies a horrible death. If this god has good intentions, I fail to see them. Nor do view that as "codling them".

Perhaps it's because I don't believe in an interventionist deity.
I don't see Creator as viewing humanity as any more deserving than any other species on the planet.
99% of all life on this planet has gone extinct and new species have taken their place... why do humans deserve any better?

wa:do

 

[Beaudreaux]

Are you so sure that it's negated? After all we have no idea what that child becomes after dying. Or perhaps in dying now the child was saved from a fate even worse. Or maybe god just wasn't capable of interfering in that regard. I imagine any god would have certain rules to adhere to, maybe he is incapable of interfering with us directly. There are so many factors and nuances that we are unaware of and any god must be infinitely more aware of all these factors and nuances than we are. As such how can we possibly judge him based on our own limited understanding.

For instance, we see someone shoot and kill a dog, we think they are horrible. We know nothing of the situation beyond that and we think they are horrid for doing such a thing. Yet what if that same dog had rabies or was suffering terribly from cancer or what have you? That same act that we consider horrid would seem merciful and loving to those who were aware of the dogs condition. Nothing about the situation itself has changed, the only difference is in the information available to others. Different information leads to different conclusions and opinions. And isn't it usually agreed upon that those who have the most information about a situation are the ones best suited for making the decision and better able to make the decision that's in the best interest of all involved?

If I understand you correctly, there is no such thing as a "bad" event. You seem to be saying that everything that happens, no matter how horrible it may seem, is actually an opportunity to grow and is therefore really a good thing. Am I right here?

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

I agree with what you're saying to a point, but you're using the "codle and protect us" argument here again. That's not what Beadreaux and the others are saying. They are giving examples that absolutely negate any form of lesson learning or strength building.

How is allowing a completely innocent, helpless, child fall into the hands of someone who would do unspeakable things to them benevolent in any way, shape, or form? Yet this happens quite often. And it happens in such a way that the perpetrator gets off scott free, and the child dies a horrible death. If this god has good intentions, I fail to see them. Nor do view that as "codling them".

If we are to believe that we are spiritual beings and that there is some sort of life after death then death is simply a stepping stone/threshold/doorway to another form of existence and we do not actually die.

All the pain and suffering caused at the loss of those children is felt here in the physical realm. From the spiritual side those "children" have moved on to another existence and they are no longer suffering.

And if there is no after life and no supreme being then those children are again no longer suffering because they no longer exist in any form.

 

[MoonWater]

If I understand you correctly, there is no such thing as a "bad" event. You seem to be saying that everything that happens, no matter how horrible it may seem, is actually an opportunity to grow and is therefore really a good thing. Am I right here?

Not really though I can see how you could draw that interpretation. Personally I don't buy into the "good vs. evil" dichotomy and try to avoid those labels all together(I don't even believe in a benevolent deity). I'm not saying that "everything is actually good", I'm just saying that I fail to see how we can make accurate judgements on any god's actions or non-actions when we obviously do not have access to the same amount of knowledge and understanding that said god possesses. Unless we know god and know the universe how can we judge if he is truly benevolent or not.

I still think a child suffering and dying is a tragic event and that any person's responsible for such an act (if any are) should be rehabilitated(note I said rehabilitated not punished), and I would also fight tooth and nail to defend my child(if I had one).

I just don't see how god not interferring in such things automatically means he must be evil, or at the very least can't be benevolent. To judge god as such is to judge him by human standards and in truth I really don't see how it is fair to judge a being obviously much more highly evolved than us by the standards that we have for ourselves. Seems to me it would be on the same grounds as if an ameboid tried to judge humans by it's own standards(assuming for a moment an ameboid could have standards)

Am I making sense now?

 

[Autodidact]

i agree with that but arent we suppose to believe in one and he is going to help us

Hey, rick, didn't read to the end of the thread, hope you're still around. I'm sorry you've been having a rough time and hope it gets better for you and yours. I also do not believe that there is a God, but I think you might want to slow down and take a broader view before reaching that conclusion. It seems like the rough times you've had are making you focus on your own narrow experience, rather than stepping back and trying to analyse the question more calmly or logically. I do think you have a better chance of improving your life if you take control of it yourself and don't expect God to do it for you. I'm happy to talk to you about this or whatever you want to talk about. Oh, and a little punctuation is a nice thing.

 

[Autodidact]

Not saying he would be an Ok guy. But if there is nothing I can do to convince him otherwise, then what else can I do? Other than make my relative's passing comfortable as I can while spending as much time with them as I could.

Well, you probably wouldn't call him great and loving, and give him prayers of thanks on a daily basis.

 

[Autodidact]

The argument is not that God "DID" these things (although a strong one could be made in that direction). The argument is that He COULD HAVE PREVENTED THEM AND DID NOT.


The physician analogy earlier in the thread illustrates this.

• Someone discovers a compound that would cure all forms of cancer with no side effects
• That person lets everyone know he/she has discovered it
• That person also declares he/she will NOT share this discovery with the world.
• That person also decides to go to as many cancer wards as he/she can, including pediatric cancer wards, to watch patients die of the disease he/she has a cure for.

Such a person would be pilloried by the public. What could be more evil than this?

Someone who decides to slaughter everyone on earth, including the newborn babies? Oh yeah, that would be God too.

Someone who gets angry at their soldiers because they only killed the men and took the women prisoner, and sent them back to kill all the little boys? Oh yeah, God again.

 

[painted wolf]

Someone who decides to slaughter everyone on earth, including the newborn babies? Oh yeah, that would be God too.

Forget the little babies... everything on Earth will die. 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. What are a few human babies in comparison?

Someone who gets angry at their soldiers because they only killed the men and took the women prisoner, and sent them back to kill all the little boys? Oh yeah, God again.

Or the political leaders claiming authority from God... not to mention the story is propaganda to begin with.

wa:do